And you will need to hope that a jury will buy your explanation. It's going to be a much tougher sale if the assailant was fleeing.

We should all hope that we need not be in front of a jury doing any explaining. I always get the feeling in these type threads that the vast majority of the people thumping their chests expressing how blood thirsty they are have never had to deal with the actual decision of possibly of taking a life.

We should all hope that we need not be in front of a jury doing any explaining. I always get the feeling in these type threads that the vast majority of the people thumping their chests expressing how blood thirsty they are have never had to deal with the actual decision of possibly of taking a life.

I would agree. It concerns me the number of people presumably armed for self defence are as you say thumping their chests expressing how blood thirsty they are , saying he deserves a pat on the back for example. I expected people to have a more responsible attitude to self defence and taking a life, I was obviously expecting too much.

Similar case I had.
A lone woman comes home to find burglars inside her home.
She goes for her husbands 12 ga. in a closet. Crooks flee with her t-v.
She shoots one outside the home liberally peppering him with 1 1/4 oz of #4
shot, mostly in head, face, neck, shoulder.
He lived, both sent to jail.
I feel the elderly man will be charged.
Is is right? That's up tp a court.

You are in service in a defensive position.
The opposing force has attacked you before and raided your supplies.
They attack again and wound you.
You manage to go on the offensive as they retreat from your perimeter.
You let them escape to return and fight another day?
Or you continue to fight them in the heat of the battle?

Just a thought from the other evening. Certainly NOT advocating the actions of the gentleman.

But - if I was on the jury, the above thoughts would weigh heavy on me.

You are in service in a defensive position.
The opposing force has attacked you before and raided your supplies.
They attack again and wound you.
You manage to go on the offensive as they retreat from your perimeter.
You let them escape to return and fight another day?
Or you continue to fight them in the heat of the battle?...

These sorts of military analogies are meaningless and worthless in the civilian world. They bear no relation to the applicable laws regarding the use of force.

__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

---------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly NOT advocating the actions of the gentleman
------------------------------------------------------------------

I saw your disclaimer. However, I wanted to be sure that everyone understood that your military analogy added nothing useful to our understanding of the legal realities of this situation.

__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

In my locale, it would depend on the time of day. If a burglary or larceny is committed during the night time on ones property, the property owner has the right to "apprehend" the offender and prevent his escape, including the use of deadly force to do so.

There have been several similar cases here in the last few years. There has not been any charges filed in any of the cases that I am familiar with. It is not a popular law with some, however it is the law of the land here.

It appears that he returned home at night to find burglars in his house in the act of going through his things, and was then assaulted by the suspects. If it happened here, and his story checked out, he would be good to go.

Burglary of a dwelling occurring during the hours of darkness can result in a sentence of life in prison here. It seems that the Legislature here is pretty serious about home burglary.

In my locale, it would depend on the time of day. If a burglary or larceny is committed during the night time on ones property, the property owner has the right to "apprehend" the offender and prevent his escape, including the use of deadly force to do so.

You must live in Texas because, as far as I know, Texas is the ONLY state with a provision like that in state law. People who live in other states should not fall into the trap of extrapolating from the laws of one state to assume that the same laws apply in other states.

In my locale, it would depend on the time of day. If a burglary or larceny is committed during the night time on ones property, the property owner has the right to "apprehend" the offender and prevent his escape, including the use of deadly force to do so.

What matters the most here are (1) the laws in Montana and (2) the facts of the case at hand, as indicated by the totality to the evidence.

That comment sounds liks a gross misstatement or misunderstanding of the law in the state of Texas.

Texas, alone among US jurisdictions, justifies the use of deadly force to prevent the imminent commission of arson, burglary, aggravated robbery, or criminal mischief, or theft during the night time or criminal mischief during the night time; [/I], when and only if [I] there is reason to believe that deadly force is immediately necessary and that the property cannot be protected in any other way without exposing the actor to a substantial physical risk.

The law also permits the use of deadly force to prevent a person who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property, again if and only if the property cannot be recovered in any other way without exposing the actor to a substantial physical risk.

"Criminal mischief" has a formal legal definition and has to do with the destruction of property.

Quote:

It appears that he returned home at night to find burglars in his house in the act of going through his things, and was then assaulted by the suspects.

I saw nothing to indicate that the convicted killer had returned home at night.

Quote:

If it happened here, and his story checked out, he would be good to go.

If it happened in Texas, the case would go to Grand Jury. The suspect will not have counsel present or be able to present evidence, but he will accrue legal and other expenses in great amounts.

Quote:

Burglary of a dwelling occurring during the hours of darkness can result in a sentence of life in prison here. It seems that the Legislature here is pretty serious about home burglary.

That depends entirely upon the intent of the burglar, and the time of day is not relevant.

The maximum penalty is only tangentially related to the justification for the use of force.

You can't have a situation just because someone was in the wrong stealing from someone for example that its OK to shoot them in the back when they are running away.

I can easily imagine a situation where I would feel fully morally justified, but those kinds of situations very seldom exist in the US today, and even fewer of them fall within the bounds of existing law.

I can see more than a bit of sense in the old laws. The Texas law allowing a rapist to be killed, "still in the vicinity of the victim" strikes me as rather good sense. I'm looking at this from the viewpoint of what is, and is not a crime, rather than the common assumption of what the law "allows" you to do.

As I see it, a women who was raped, and after the act, managed to get a weapon and drop her "ravisher" before he left should not be guilty of a crime.

As to the particular shooting here, no, it was not a good shoot. Fleeing burgulars are the responsibility of the state. That is the system as it exists today, and we all need to live within it, no matter what our feelings about its flaws are.

Yes, the best course is to say as little as possible afterwards. On the other hand, the guy was 80, grew up in a time of a different morality, one where generally it was assumed that any criminal who came to mishap deserved what they got.

He simply might not care. The threat of a long jail term means little at the end of one's life. Certainly the possible threat of legal trouble, which might even take years to resolve would weigh less in many minds than the possibility of further physical harm from some thugs who have already seriously injured you once.

Generally speaking when the attacker(s) flee, further action is not defense in the eyes of the law, it is vengeance, and a punishable offense, even though it be committed against the verifiable scum of the earth, it is a crime in our society today.

Depending on your personal views, it may be morally justifiable, but it is rarely legally so.

__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

I offer no opinion as to whether or not the person here was morally right or wrong, only what would be likely to happen if the same facts existed here.

There have been a number of very similar incidents that have occurred here over the last several years. I tried to be very clear about that. There are a number of very strong opinions expressed in this thread that are not necessarily correct according to the law, and the law is not universally the same everywhere.

Of course there is often a moral dilemma when the decision is made to use deadly force. In no way would I imply that it is morally OK to shoot someone in any given circumstance. However, there are circumstances where there may be some debate among some people as to whether or not the situation was morally right, but it was however legally correct, and the person would not be charged regardless of whether or not some people thought that the use of deadly force was morally right.

Old marksman...This is the first paragraph of the news article:

"80-year-old Tom Greer of Long Beach California arrived home Tuesday night to find a couple robbing his house. A man and a woman were rummaging through his things, including a safe. The robbers attacked Greer when he went inside."

I'm sorry maybe you didn't read it, which is why you saw nothing that indicated that it happened at night.

It says what it says, "he arrived home Tuesday night." It happened in Long Beach California, I don't know what the law is there. I clearly said "if it had happened here" which similar things have, which is why the General Assembly here felt the need to clarify the common law castle doctrine.

The article also says,
"Greer suffered serious shoulder and collarbone injuries from the altercation."

Someone else said... "it matters not what time of day"

Well, on the contrary read this...

SECTION 16-11-311. Burglary; first degree.

(A) A person is guilty of burglary in the first degree if the person enters a dwelling without consent and with intent to commit a crime in the dwelling, and either:
(1) when, in effecting entry or while in the dwelling or in immediate flight, he or another participant in the crime:

(a) is armed with a deadly weapon or explosive; or

(b) causes physical injury to a person who is not a participant in the crime; or

(c) uses or threatens the use of a dangerous instrument; or

(d) displays what is or appears to be a knife, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, or other firearm; or

(2) the burglary is committed by a person with a prior record of two or more convictions for burglary or housebreaking or a combination of both; or

(3) the entering or remaining occurs in the nighttime.

(B) Burglary in the first degree is a felony punishable by life imprisonment. For purposes of this section, "life" means until death. The court, in its discretion, may sentence the defendant to a term of not less than fifteen years.

I am not in Texas, I don't know what the laws are there. Also I don't know what the laws are in Montana, I am not there either, nor did I see anything about Montana in the article. What I do know, is what the law is here.

Read this:
ARTICLE 6

Protection of Persons and Property

SECTION 16-11-410. Citation of article.

This article may be cited as the "Protection of Persons and Property Act".

HISTORY: 2006 Act No. 379, Section 1, eff June 9, 2006.

SECTION 16-11-420. Intent and findings of General Assembly.

(A) It is the intent of the General Assembly to codify the common law Castle Doctrine which recognizes that a person's home is his castle and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person's place of business.

(B) The General Assembly finds that it is proper for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.

(C) The General Assembly finds that Section 20, Article I of the South Carolina Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms, and this right shall not be infringed.

(D) The General Assembly finds that persons residing in or visiting this State have a right to expect to remain unmolested and safe within their homes, businesses, and vehicles.

(E) The General Assembly finds that no person or victim of crime should be required to surrender his personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person or victim be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack.

HISTORY: 2006 Act No. 379, Section 1, eff June 9, 2006.

SECTION 16-11-430. Definitions.

As used in this article, the term:

(1) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including an attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging there at night.

(2) "Great bodily injury" means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ.

(3) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(4) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

HISTORY: 2006 Act No. 379, Section 1, eff June 9, 2006.

SECTION 16-11-440. Presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril when using deadly force against another unlawfully entering residence, occupied vehicle or place of business.

(A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:

(1) against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(2) who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.

(B) The presumption provided in subsection (A) does not apply if the person:

(1) against whom the deadly force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder; or

(2) sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship, of the person against whom the deadly force is used; or

(3) who uses deadly force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(4) against whom the deadly force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in the performance of his official duties, and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using force knows or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter is a law enforcement officer.

(C) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

(D) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

(E) A person who by force enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in violation of an order of protection, restraining order, or condition of bond is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act regardless of whether the person is a resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder.

(A) A person who uses deadly force as permitted by the provisions of this article or another applicable provision of law is justified in using deadly force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of deadly force, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known that the person is a law enforcement officer.

(B) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of deadly force as described in subsection (A), but the agency may not arrest the person for using deadly force unless probable cause exists that the deadly force used was unlawful.

(C) The court shall award reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of a civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (A).

HISTORY: 2006 Act No. 379, Section 1, eff June 9, 2006.

The law says nothing about whether or not the offender has decided to leave, it only say that the entering is in progress, or has occurred. Clearly, it was in progress when the victim arrived home at night. Clearly the victim sustained an injury that could be serious and permanent.

The law also assumes that if you used deadly force, you were in fear of imminent peril.

What is not clear is how long would it take the police to get there, and were there other persons there that the victim was not aware of, and did the suspects intend to return to a vehicle to respond to the victims weapon with a weapon of their own.

They had apparently robbed him twice before, it would be reasonable for him to think that there may be a fourth time, or maybe next time they will kill me.

Who knows what Mr. Greer thought, but what he thought at the time has a huge bearing on whether or not the prosecutor will pursue any charges in the case.

How did he know that the female was telling the truth? "Oh wait don't shoot, I'm pregnant...Bang, works every time old man. Well, in fact she was not pregnant.

This law also foresees the huge expense that may be incurred on a person in such a situation, and the General Assembly provides a remedy for it to also protect the victim from being needlessly ruined financially because he felt compelled to defend himself.

Again, if it occurred here he could not even be arrested under the same circumstances. Of course, things do not always happen as the person relates them to the police.

There is often more to the story.

If the investigation revealed later that he was not truthful, then he possibly be charged later according to what the facts indicated to actually have happened.

There are several elements involved in what happened in this incident that would covered Mr. Greer if he lived here. Again, I don't misunderstand the law in Texas, in fact I know nothing of it. On the other hand, I do have a very concrete understanding of the law in South Carolina.

Again my post applied the circumstances to what would happen (has happened) here. Obviously, the prosecutor in California thought he was justified in doing what he did, and declined to charge Mr. Greer. What if he had not done what he did, would Mr. Greer be dead instead? We don't know, and he didn't know either. What we do know is that he did what he did, and he lived to explain it to the police.

Someone said "the convicted murderer". Which one? Mr. Tom Greer was not charged. I don't know which murderer they were referring to.

As to advanced age not being important when facing a long prison term?

What I want more than anything else in my life is to attend my Daughter's college graduation, attend her wedding, and hold her baby when it is born. I would not be able to do that in prison. Maybe Mr. Greer wants to do those same things.

Maybe if he had listened to the lying female thief, he would never get to do those things.

Maybe, maybe not. Mr. Greer wasn't prepared to bet his life on it was he.

Good for him.

Whether or not he was morally right or wrong, is a matter he will have to reconcile with his god if he has one.

And just to be clear about that gross misinterpretation I have about the law in Texas? Maybe so, I don't know about Texas, but read this South Carolina Statute.

Is Texas alone among US jurisdictions really?

Well, here you go.

SECTION 17-13-20. Additional circumstances when citizens may arrest; means to be used.

A citizen may arrest a person in the nighttime by efficient means as the darkness and the probability of escape render necessary, even if the life of the person should be taken, when the person:

(a) has committed a felony;

(b) has entered a dwelling house without express or implied permission;

(c) has broken or is breaking into an outhouse with a view to plunder;

(d) has in his possession stolen property; or

(e) being under circumstances which raise just suspicion of his design to steal or to commit some felony, flees when he is hailed.

The suspects in Mr. Greer's incident from what I read met about four out of the five above listed provisions in this statute.

Clearly, Mr. Greer would have been "Good to Go" here. If the facts as he related them were true, there would never even be any question.

We can debate about whether or not it is right or wrong to shoot an escaping criminal thief on your property at night, but if it happens here, the best advise I can give him is "when he is hailed", he better stop and lay down.

That is the law HERE. This is why it is imperative if you own or carry a gun, that you are aware of the laws in your state. It is you responsibility.

They are all different.

Many people would not believe that such a situation could be legal under the laws of a particular state, yet they are, and some states even go so far as to provide civil and criminal immunity in such a situation.

Somewhere else, you may go to jail. But the law here is QUITE clear. As I said before, some people want to debate morals, and their opinions about what is right and wrong.

gman, I had just been reading about a case in Montana, and I had a senior moment.

Your points about knowing the law are well taken.

However, I do caution about relying on a layman's interpretation of any statute taken in isolation. I seriously doubt that the intent of the South Carolina legislature included the justification of the use of deadly force against a burglar who had departed from a residence and who was fleeing down an alley. You really should consult a criminal attorney in your state on that question.

Looks like the account of the story he gave the media was a contradiction of what he told LE and, what the forensic evidence revealed. All shots were inside the home. It was ruled a "good shoot" as a result.

His bragging to the media could certainly have been his un-doing had it not been for a thorough investigation by LE.

Geesh, know when to shut your cake hole !

__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Looks like the account of the story he gave the media was a contradiction of what he told LE and, what the forensic evidence revealed. All shots were inside the home. It was ruled a "good shoot" as a result.

It sure does. Strange.

Quote:

His bragging to the media could certainly have been his un-doing had it not been for a thorough investigation by LE.

Looks like the account of the story he gave the media was a contradiction of what he told LE and, what the forensic evidence revealed.

This brings up an interesting point.

Despite the risks of being hung in the "court of public opinion", as far as I know, no one is under any kind of legal obligation to tell the media the truth!

I can see where someone (an 80 year old, in this case, which may explain the willingness to do it) knowing he told the police the truth, and knowing that the evidence will back him up, might deliberately lie to the "media pukes", simply to enjoy watching them get all spun up.

While I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, I can understand the temptation to do it. What are they going to do? Sue you? I suppose it is possible. What a jury to be on! (or would we be in People's Court?)

"Well Mr 44AMP, I see here you are being sued for lying to a reporter...what's your side of this matter?"
"Your honor, they said they couldn't wait for the investigation to determine the facts, they needed a story, so I told them a story."

__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

We have a murderer living in my county. The man is perminantly disabled because when he was fleeing the scene of the murder he flew off the road. There is a preponderance of evidence to convict him but his medical bills for his living are so high that the prosecuter will not prosecute him because the county can not afford his medical costs to put him into the county jail to even await trial.

There are a plenty of things that will come into play in this case that we may never know about as if this elderly man ever comes to trial.

...Despite the risks of being hung in the "court of public opinion", as far as I know, no one is under any kind of legal obligation to tell the media the truth!...

Problem with that is that inconsistent statements can be used against you to impugn your credibility. The best way to handle the media is a firm, and consistent, "no comment."

__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.